You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

RomeoStevens comments on Forecasting and recursive Inhibition within a decision cycle - Less Wrong Discussion

1 Post author: Clarity 20 December 2015 05:37AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (8)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: RomeoStevens 20 December 2015 09:24:42PM 0 points [-]

open problem: external validity of rationality techniques. No body of standard methodology for tests to establish it.

Comment author: Lumifer 21 December 2015 03:49:22PM 1 point [-]

There is the... traditional methodology: If you're so smart, how come you ain't rich?

Comment author: RomeoStevens 21 December 2015 09:36:14PM *  0 points [-]

Noisy, but yes. If people using rationality techniques don't outperform educational attainment matched controls that would be some evidence against them. Of course there is the selection effect of the sort of person who is drawn to rationality techniques vs not. Does the LW census gather income data? Is LW mostly underperformers?

Comment author: Lumifer 21 December 2015 09:45:39PM 2 points [-]

educational attainment matched controls

IQ-matched controls would be much better as "educational attainment" is often just a proxy for IQ. You would also need to control for things like age and, relevant to LW, being in grad school.

Comment author: RomeoStevens 23 December 2015 03:02:03AM *  0 points [-]

I was under the impression that the effect of IQ on income mostly disappears once educational attainment is included.

Comment author: Lumifer 23 December 2015 04:42:25PM *  2 points [-]

Well, it depends on what you're interested in. Educational attainment and IQ are correlated, so if you control for one, any of the two, the effect of the other one lessens.

I would argue that IQ is more important since it causes the educational attainment and not vice versa.